Appeal No. 96-0281
Application 08/248,625
old. Appellant points out that in clear contrast, Sakata
teaches compressing all of the data. Appellant further empha-
sizes this argument in the reply brief.
On page 5 of the answer, the Examiner argues that
Appellant fails to claim the selection between compressed data
and non-compressed data. On page 6 of the answer, the Exam-
iner argues that Sakata teaches compressing data based upon
the amount of storage capacity left. For this teaching, the
Examiner relies on Sakata's abstract.
We note that Appellant's claim 15 recites "said
memory management unit determining an amount of said data
stored within
said memory means and generating a compression signal when
said amount exceeds a predetermined threshold." We note that
Appellant's claims 20, 23 and 26, which are the other inde-
pendent claims, contain similar limitations.
Upon a careful review of Sakata, we fail to find
that Sakata teaches a memory management unit that determines
an amount of data stored within the memory means and generates
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007